Talk:Hugo Boss (businessman)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Study about Boss NS involvement[edit]

https://wwd.com/business-news/media/for-the-record-5204423/ https://www.group.hugoboss.com/files/Study_on_the_Companys_History_Abridged_Version_en_final.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8109:B40:2258:8C77:CFF8:B1DB:FD47 (talk) 04:37, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Uniforms[edit]

Does anyone have a picture that they know for sure is of a Nazi uniform designed by Hugo Boss? Not necessarily for here (it certainly shouldn't be the only picture here) but I'd just like to have one for my archives. --Andrew 02:00, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

A news story in which they seem to have a decent attitude about it - "we didn't know that; we have no archives, so we're trying to find out what really happened". Also claims they designed uniforms for the SS, the shock troops and the Hitler Youth.

The "Grand Prix Encyclopedia"

Who's Boss? includes lots of details and sources.

Hugo Boss (politische) Biografie - by one of the researchers who unearthed the facts; in German (which I can't read).

The Awful Truth has just a little information, and a (tiny) picture with Nazi uniforms subtitled "Boss" - but I think it's just a photoshop hack. The Awful Truth this is a mordern day photoshop hack, the logo Boss Hugo Boss was not used until the 1980's.

Some of these should be used as references to improve the article. --Andrew 00:36, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

As far as I know the ownership info is wrong Hugo Boss is owned by italian fashion group Marzotto P&G only holds a licence for the fragrance line

Nazis[edit]

This company should be shut down. The capital of the company today was built on war crimes. I don't care if all the founding board members are dead. The people today running the company are benefitting from these actions in WWII. CJ DUB 02:12, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2 words; war reparations. In any case, it's not the role of WP to decide which company ought to be shut down and which isn't. Further, you could argue that Lockheed Martin with its 130.000 employees should be shut down as well. War profiteer, y'know? --TVPR 08:49, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
HUGO BOSS AG are one of the world's leading fashion houses, especially for menswear and just because they have a bad history doesn't mean the company should shut down. You expect companies inside a regime of the time to ignore it and hope they don't get dragged into it? Please...--Djkinsella 19:11, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Or they could relocate to other countries? yes no maybe? answer is yes exploiting slave labour to make uniforms even if your company resides in said country is inexcusable, the reason i wouldnt say companies like ford, porsche etc be disbanded is because they were awarded contracts to make conventional weapons not exploit mass slave labour or help in genocide. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.212.59.103 (talk) 11:24, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What silly and childish remarks. There is no prove of any "war crimes" and neither did they use any "Slave labour", which is a bogus term in the context anyway. --41.151.45.51 (talk) 20:14, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia talk pages are not meant for political campaigning. Hugo Boss used a small number of POW's. It did not commit war crimes. Even if it did, that is no reason to close it down. If it was a reason for closure most European and American (and all Chinese and Russian) firms would be shut.Royalcourtier (talk) 22:10, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request article name change[edit]

I request that the name of this article is changed to 'HUGO BOSS' instead of 'Hugo Boss'. The company, like many others such as the spelling of eBay or iPod etc chooses to write it's logo like that in all written documentation, employees must write it that way and the press are asked (not always comply) to that presentation too.

If this can be approved I will also change the way the article is written with reference to the sub-brands of BOSS & HUGO again with the capital letters.

The issue is that this article is primarily about the company NOT the person, if it was the person it should most certainly be 'Hugo Boss'. --Djkinsella 22:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a separate article on the company - given the lack of information in this article should they be merged Arachrah (talk) 13:57, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


This article is about the person, not the company[edit]

Most of the comments here, as well as some text on the page (regarding the SS uniforms) are about the company Hugo Boss, not the person Hugo Ferdinand Boss. I think the text about the SS uniforms needs to go, since it has more of a connection to the company, rather than the person.

mnot (talk) 04:56, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There appears to be two versions! One when I'm logged in talks about Hugo Boss joining the Nazi Party in 1931 and being fined after the war for his support of Nazism, and the other, when I'm not logged in, is lesser and talks almost exclusively about the SS designs his company did from 1933 to 1945.

Albo2005 (talk) 10:44, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move[edit]

Move request 1[edit]

Hugo Boss (fashion designer) → Hugo Boss(person) — The owner of a company producing nazi uniforms can hardly be called a fashion designer. The company became involved in fashion design after the death of Hugo Boss. Racconish Tk 15:23, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed.Racconish Tk 19:33, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't mind, I'm going to replace the tag.
I think we should go back to my initial proposition. The article can't stay with this title. Racconish Tk 05:37, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Move request 2[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:09, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hugo Boss (fashion designer) → Hugo Boss — Per above. Hugo Boss not exactly a designer, more a military outfitter. Best fix would be moving him to Hugo Boss, and taking the AG on the company Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 20:33, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]


  • Oppose. The company is the primary topic. Perhaps there's a better disambiguator for the company founder? But it's not obvious to me what it would be. Andrewa (talk) 22:15, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The company is the primary topic. All the information on the person is in the article on the company. Racconish Tk 05:13, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Photo?[edit]

What did he look like? What did his designs look like? --Navstar (talk) 01:32, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hugo Boss (fashion designer). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:50, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dead link[edit]

I added the Dead link template to reference #4. I'm 90% certain I used the template right, but it keeps displaying the date information as bare code. Can somebody fix it? --JDspeeder1 (talk) 05:03, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hugo Boss was not a fashion designer[edit]

Hugo Boss was not a fashion designer: in his lifetime, his company manufactured Nazi uniforms, but did not design them. The idea that he designed Nazi uniforms is a popular misconception, and as far as I know, his company was never even the sole supplier. It wasn't until after the war, and Boss' death, that the company HUGO BOSS became a fashion company, pivoting away from uniforms and towards suits. The HUGO BOSS brand was only introduced in 1970. Before this change, the business is best described as a clothing or textile company.

Further, I don't believe there is any citation here that establishes Hugo Boss as a "fashion designer" anyway, so describing him as one appears to be original research.

In light of this, it seems to me that the article should instead be titled "Hugo Boss (Businessman)" or some other such description. Battle1368 (talk) 23:02, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 11 December 2022[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) 2pou (talk) 16:04, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hugo Boss (fashion designer) → Hugo Boss (businessman) – It is erroneous to call Hugo Boss a fashion designer. Although he founded a company which would eventually become a fashion house, during his lifetime this company was merely in the business of manufacturing clothes, not designing them. As far as I can tell, most reliable sources do not describe him as a fashion designer, even if he may be colloquially known as such. Although I have not found a source referring to him explicitly as a "businessman", there are several sources identifying him as a founder and owner of a business, which appears to be his primary historical significance. I would regard this as a fairly neutral description if nothing else: better than the current title which contributes to the myth that Hugo Boss personally designed SS uniforms (which I believed until all too recently!).

I'm no expert on Wikipedian policies in this regard, so I'm not quite sure how I'd go about proving that businessman is a commonly used term. If I am understanding Wikipedia:Article titles correctly, specifically "Ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources" then the current title is certainly inappropriate, given the existence of sources which contradict this description. Battle1368 (talk) 14:40, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support per nominator. The company Hugo Boss founded is more famous than Hugo Boss himself, so the article about the company should remain at Hugo Boss. JIP | Talk 09:58, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Was he eastern?[edit]

Or atleast half? is there anything known? 2A02:A44A:F69B:1:7C08:1516:C577:931A (talk) 07:35, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hugo_Boss_(businessman)&oldid=1194474698"